Diana: Hello. Good morning, afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us at this official event of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice entitled Balancing Security Investments: Rethinking Militarized Budgets in Latin America. My name is Diana and I'll be guiding today's conversation.

This event is part of a global response to the call for contributions launched by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), which seeks to gather perspectives on military spending and its implications. Our conversation will inform future UN reports and multilateral dialogues on disarmament and development.

Today, as military budgets grow across Latin America, poverty and inequality persist, public trust weakens, and sustainable peace remains out of reach. This event brings together academics, civil society leaders, former military officers, and human rights defenders to examine how we can redirect our budgets and policies from militarization to peacebuilding, justice, and well-being.

In our first panel on the costs of militarization, our main question will be: how has the militarization of public security in Latin America affected democratic institutions, human rights, and social welfare?

Diana: So, first we would listen to Alicia, who I don't think has arrived, so we can skip it and I heard the next panelist who would be You have the list, right? Felix.

Félix Madariaga: Perfect. I am going to talk about the costs of militarization, the impact on democracy, rights and the social fabric in my country.

Today I want to talk to you about the costs of militarization in Chile, its impact on democracy, human rights and the social fabric. And I will do so from a key moment in our recent history: the social outbreak that occurred in Chile in 2019, where thousands of people took to the streets throughout the country. Cabildos, marches, assemblies, cultural demonstrations, put the social and economic system at the center of the discontent. It was a profoundly citizen-oriented protest, massive and peaceful in its origin, in which elderly women, pensioners, sexual diversity, professionals, women, students...

And what was the State's response? Repression. In the first five months of the outbreak alone, the Carabineros fired 193,000 tear gas canisters and threw 45,000 chemical grenades at the population. In addition, they used 152,000 pellet cartridges in just three months. It was a massive use of so-called "less lethal" weaponry, but it left serious consequences: people injured, intoxicated, with eye damage, mutilations and traumas. And many of these projectiles contained lead, directly affecting health, especially in children and adolescents who participated in these massive protests.

In addition, what can I say, the former president at the time, right-wing President Sebastián Piñera, declared war on the people in a speech to the nation.

But this was not only repression: it was also a business. A single company called Millenium Limitada was responsible for 86% of the anti-riot shotguns purchased by the Carabineros and 100% of the gas rifles. They sold tear gas cartridges for 370,000 and shotguns and carbines for more than 500,000. This company is majority-owned by Salomón Goldbaum, known for supporting far-right ideas and the presidential campaign in Chile of José Antonio Kast. In other words, behind the repression there was ideology and business.

The human consequences were also devastating. According to Chile's National Institute of Human Rights, as of October 2020, 3,838 people were injured by state agents. 1,580 were minors. And 298 were directly hit by tear gas bombs. And we all know that there was a lot of eye damage to the eyes.

These figures are not an error or isolated events. They are part of a policy of systematic repression, a violence exercised by the State that left marks on bodies, on communities and on our democratic trust. It is so devastating that it will be six years since the social outbreak and the State has not yet begun to think about how to repair the damage caused to Chilean society.

So, we ask ourselves: what are the costs of militarization? We are not only talking about millions of dollars spent on weapons. We are talking about thousands of victims, a violated citizenry and a totally weakened democracy.

When the state responds violently to social protest, it not only represses bodies: it also represses voices, ideas, and rights.

Today we work at Sintras, which is a mental health center that supported the victims of Pinochet's military dictatorship and today supports the victims of the social outbreak to make them visible. Many of them, with eye damage, have now committed suicide because they do not have justice. And this has a very high cost for democracy and for the future.

I took this example, and in Chile there are many more. More than 50 years since the coup d'état, and I wish we would have another moment to talk about what has been the militarization of the lands of the Mapuche in Chile. It has been three years of militarization in the area.

Thank you very much to all of you. That's it.

Diana: Thank you very much for your participation. I think there is also a lot of information about which, despite being in the same region, we do not know the situation in Chile, which in recent years is also something that we should take into account, it seems to me. Hey, thank you very much for your participation. This... Julio Yao, if he can turn on his microphone and his camera.

Julio Yao: When will you give me the floor? Hello... The audio had already been lost. Aha. So what should I go on to say about the current situation? In reality, in Panama's history with the United States – or rather, in national history since the nineteenth century – the role of the United States has been exaggeratedly preponderant in favor of imperialist interests.

Today, we have gone back to the beginning of the 20th century, when we just gained independence from Colombia with a treaty imposed by the United States that no Panamanian signed and that was a total sale, in quotation marks, to U.S. imperialism. What is happening today is a kind of return to the early stages of the Republic, in which we fought as we are now fighting against those measures.

The most important thing about the current moment is that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made Panama sign a memorandum of understanding, an agreement that basically contains the most serious points.

The first is that the United States asked us to break with the Silk Road, with the Belt and Road Initiative, when Panama was the first country to enter that initiative in 2018. And currently, the United States has asked us that U.S. ships — whether they belong to the U.S. Navy, that is, the U.S. Navy, or commercial ships — pass through Panama completely free of charge. That is an absurd imposition that not only violates the Neutrality Treaty signed with the United States, but also violates other types of agreements, in addition to violating the UN Charter and public international law. We are completely against all that.

The United States has also asked us — although they do not say so in those words — to establish military bases in Panama. Those military bases are the same ones that were before the Torrijos-Carter treaties: at Fort Sherman (Colón), in Rodman and here in the Pacific. In other words, those three bases have been revived, resurrected, by the current imposition of the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.

And there are other concessions that explain why the crisis in Panama is taking place with strong repression. The government has become a ferocious dictatorship and there is no way to disguise it or call it anything else. So, we consider that the country is in an extremely delicate situation.

Currently, popular forces—including students, doctors, teachers, construction workers, the entire indigenous movement in Panama—are against the government and there is brutal repression. A lot has been spent and we have seen the videos where the massive use of tear gas is demonstrated in one locality and another to crush the popular revolt, because there is no other way to call it: it is a revolt for democracy.

It is very difficult to predict what the immediate or immediate fate of this popular revolt will be. Why? Because, in accordance with U.S. policy, they always justify their intervention in some amendments that the Senate introduced to the canal treaties when they were discussed. These amendments—which were never approved by the Panamanian people—are contrary to public international law and violate the UN Charter.

For example, the Nunn Amendment and the DeConcini Amendment say that the United States can intervene in Panama to defend the canal against any threat. And that – according to these amendments, which only the United States recognizes – they can intervene without asking for the consent of the sovereign state of Panama. Obviously, that is a brutal transgression of international law that we have rejected in different instances.

So I think that one of the countries that is being attacked most ferociously and whose national existence depends on a government as megalomaniac, lying and irresponsible as President Donald Trump... We are at the mercy of a real madman, a madman who is upsetting not only my country, but the whole world.

Thank God that at least there is the BRICS initiative, which is promoting multilateralism, respect for public international law, coexistence, cooperation and, above all, mutual development. We have to look for an alternative outside of this scheme.

Julio Yao: Sorry... we enjoy a good democratic process, despite the fact that the Panamanian Defense Force had control. But with the invasion, that culminated. And especially with the death of Torrijos, who was killed in 1981, in an attack by the United States.

So after the invasion of '89, of course we as a people continue to claim sovereignty and we are not going to back down. But what we are saying is that there is a brutal interference of the United States within Panamanian independence. And the current government, it pains me to say, has shown itself to be totally submissive.

The guy... he arrived with the votes of former President Martinelli, who later sought asylum in Colombia. And President Mulino really only won – in quotation marks – with 34% of the votes. Now, most of the people who voted for him are completely remorseful. Why? Because it has been seen that he has completely surrendered Panama's national interests.

So we no longer have what is called national self-determination, which according to the Constitution rests with the people themselves.

Now, today, when you consult security and intelligence experts—people who have handled the issue within the military and the police—they summarize in a few words what is happening in Panama. They say that the Public Force – because Panama has not had an army since the invasion of December 20, 1989, it was forbidden to have an army in the Constitution – is completely politicized.

In other words, organized crime has now completely penetrated the security forces. The Public Force as such does not comply with the common good, that is, with the well-being of society in general. There is an abuse of payrolls, there are very high salaries for police stations and senior police officers.

Diana: Julio, we don't hear you anymore. Something happened to your microphone. He fell silent. What else could have happened? Okay.

Diana: Thank you very much, Julio, for your explanation of the current situation in Panama. With you we also see the importance of the foreign interference we have in our region. We will now move on to our next part, which is about the strategies and institutional reforms that are needed to redirect investments in security towards peacebuilding, gender justice and sustainable development.

Daira Aguilar, managing director of Global Thought in Mexico, a political scientist and strategist focused on feminist foreign policy and security reform, who has worked extensively on gender-sensitive peacebuilding and the design of anti-military policies, is with us to talk about this issue.

Daira Aguilar: Of course. Thank you. Well, it is an honor to be here at this event and to share a panel with great not only specialists, but activists in this dimension of demilitarization in the world.

I am going to share some of the considerations that, from the organization that I lead —Global Thought— we have on demilitarization and approaches that we consider a little innovative to achieve this demilitarization and an effective security policy.

At Global Thought we believe that the need to think about strategies and institutional changes to redirect investments in security towards peacebuilding, gender justice and sustainable development is undeniable. We believe that transformations must not only occur in the governmental sphere, but also outside it.

The mobilization of informed young people committed to respecting and promoting human rights to ensure that their needs are incorporated into national, bilateral and multilateral agendas is a fundamental step that all States of the world can take to understand that the use of force is not the only way to solve security problems.

We believe that States that have taken firm steps to take on their foreign policies as feminists have an area of opportunity to redesign not only their foreign policy principles, but also their national policies to redirect government spending to the effective construction of national care systems.

The investment that has been made in defence and security has increased the budgets of the armed forces and security forces, especially to buy equipment, weapons and training to use these instruments. And this has not been shown to be effective in improving human security. On the contrary, these budgets invested in these aspects have only made it easier for state actors to commit serious human rights violations.

In addition, countries with feminist foreign policies can position in multilateral forums the agendas of care, redistribution of wealth and government budgets, as well as gradual demilitarization and effective sanctions for states that currently commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide.

At Global Thought we are aware that some of the threats to international security require military measures to be contained. However, we are also aware that many of the current problems of security and violence in contexts such as Mexico require a better understanding of gender dimensions, such as masculinities, both in State institutions and in communities, which significantly reduces the excessive socialization that is given to attributes such as courage and heroism in society.  without considering that many of these actions are risk factors.

In this sense, we want to remind you about the role of firearms. If States continue to spend exorbitant amounts on small arms and light weapons to equip their armed forces and security forces, they are more likely to fail to invest in care, education, health and community welfare. And that they also continue to feed an industry that, rather than guaranteeing the security of the world, limits the right to life of millions of people.

Therefore, an important aspect to consider is to reduce the socialization that is made from childhood towards firearms. War toys currently represent an alternative for child caregivers in order to entertain them. However, we must be very clear on the following: gun violence is not a game. For this reason, we urge States – especially those with a feminist foreign policy – to regulate the availability of war toys on the market and to provide tools so that caregivers do not promote gender roles in childhood that make them more likely to seek this type of toys that promote violence as a sign of masculinity and domination over other people.

To conclude: at Global Thought we know that no change is easy or with immediate results. But, as with the climate agenda, we are at a point of no return if we do not take the necessary measures as a global society to redistribute spending and focus on human development rather than the annihilation of our species.

Thanks a lot.

Diana: Thank you very much, Daira, for sharing a few minutes with us and for your gender perspective on this issue. We see the importance of gender roles from the beginning of what could be a better way to counteract the militarization we are currently experiencing, especially in the country. Oh, well...

Diana: Excellent. Now we move on to Per Ortega. If you can open your microphone and start your participation.

Per Ortega: Well, thank you very much for inviting me to this panel. It is a satisfaction to share with colleagues who are scholars of militarism and security in Latin America.

First of all, I want to say that I am not an expert on issues of militarization of Latin America — although I have some work done — but well, I am not an expert. Therefore, my vision is a vision from Europe, from Spain. I am going to give you my impression, how I see this question of Latin America, especially on the basis of the latest report prepared by SIPRI.

SIPRI, I suppose you know it, is the International Peace Research Institute that analyzes conflicts, military spending, militarism in the world. And I believe that it is the most prestigious center, located in Stockholm, Europe, and the most prestigious in the world.

On the basis of the latest report, which has now come out this April, I will do a little analysis of how the centre sees — and how I see — this question of Latin America.

First of all, I would also like to make a clarification, a conceptualization about what I understand by militarism from an academic point of view. We can say that it is the vision that a part of the military has – I won't say 100% either – but well, when the military tries to pressure governments to adopt decisions of force in the face of conflicts. In other words, militarization is pressuring the civilian government from the military sphere so that conflicts are resolved with the use of force, both nationally and internationally, in external conflicts.

That is to be understood by militarization. Because not all military personnel are militarists. There are also military officers who define themselves as antimilitarists. Just as an example: in 1975 in Portugal there was the Carnation Revolution, carried out by army officers who overthrew – without firing a single shot – a fascist government, that of Salazar. And it was the military themselves who brought it down. Therefore, they were not militarists.

Having said that, I would like to refer to the latest SIPRI report.

This report emphasises that, for the first time in the history of recent years, global military spending has increased so much: specifically, by 9.4% compared to 2023. We have the figures for 2024, arriving at the absurd – and violent too, I'll say why later – figure of 2,718,000 million dollars. Equal to 2.5% of global GDP.

That's crazy. It is barbaric.

And where has this increase in military spending occurred most? In Europe. In Europe at the moment – I suppose you know this – there is a process of brutal rearmament, under the suspicion that Russia could attack any other European country after the war in Ukraine and that it could invade a European country.

I think that is a fallacy and I deny it, because that would represent a European war and a world war. Because invading a NATO or European Union member country would require a unanimous response from all other countries, as NATO's Article 5 says: "all for one and one for all". That is, if someone receives an attack, the rest of the members have to respond. Therefore, we do not believe – I personally do not believe – that Vladimir Putin would have the folly to attack a European country because it would be a world war. A world war that would have to confront all European countries, 27 no less. If we also count the United States, Canada and Turkey, there would be 31. Therefore, I don't think so.

But the fact is that this rearmament is causing – at least in Europe – militarisation.

And now I'm going to Latin America.

Per Ortega: Precisely, what SIPRI says about military spending is that Latin America is decreasing its military spending. And what does that mean? Well, it's on the right track.

Then I will talk about what I understand by militarism, because that does not mean that there is no militarism in Latin America. But the fact is that, as a whole, all Latin American countries have decreased their military spending in the last year by 1.5%. That means they spend less on weapons and armed forces.

So, let's say, you're on the right track. Not like in Europe, which has increased by 16%, or the United States, which has increased by another 10%. Russia – well, of course, it is at war – has increased by 25%.

Latin America is falling, and if military spending is falling, that means that, from the point of view of dedicating more resources to civilian areas, it is happening, and that is good news.

As a whole, Latin America – and this is interesting – only in Central America and the Caribbean, with respect to GDP, spends 0.17%. The world, as I have already said, is at 2.5%. In Europe we have more than 2% on average. On the other hand, the Caribbean and Central America, 0.17%. In other words, well, it is a small expense.

South America somewhat more: the average is 2%. It is much more. But in the world ranking – when the world ranking of the 198 countries that spend on defense is made – it turns out that the Latin American country that is in the highest place is Brazil, in 21st place. We already know that Brazil is the strongest military power in South America, but it is in 21st place. Ahead are 20 other countries, mainly European. Obviously, the United States is in first place, needless to say.

The second in Latin America is Mexico, in 22nd place. And the third is Colombia, in 24th place. Colombia, which was the most militarized country, spends more than 2%: it spends 3.4% of its GDP.

On the other hand, Brazil – being the 21st largest and the most important military power in Latin America – spends 1% of its GDP. So, not much. and Mexico, 0.9%.

Well, having made these explanations, from the theoretical point of view, Latin America is on the right track. It does not devote excessive resources to the militarization of its countries.

What happens – and here we go to the other area, and my colleagues who have preceded me have expressed it, and I agree with them – is that, for them, militarization does not only mean spending a lot on weapons. Not many resources may be devoted to rearmament in Latin America, but on the other hand, the armed forces can be very militaristic, in the sense of being the armed wing of the states themselves in the repression of the internal population.

That means that, in some way, as I said at the beginning, militarization is advocating the use of force in the face of internal conflicts in Latin America. Because in external conflicts there is no country in Latin America that intervenes in any conflict in the world. None.

It is therefore a peaceful continent from a foreign policy point of view. This is not the case – let alone the United States – but it is the case in Europe, which participates in many conflicts in the world, and therefore resolves conflicts at the international level using military force.

This is not the case in Latin America.

But, on the other hand, militarism is used in the internal repression of their conflicts. And therefore there – I repeat – I give all the reason to my colleagues who have preceded me.

Per Ortega: Well, to conclude, what do I propose for a demilitarization? What do I propose so that not only military spending decreases—which I have already said has decreased—but also that the presence of the armed forces in public life be reduced, that the military be removed from the streets and returned to their barracks?

Well, my proposal has several axes:

One, to strengthen civilian security. This means that States must invest more in the training of civilian security forces, in national or regional police forces that are professionalized, with training in human rights, that have civilian oversight and accountability mechanisms. Only in this way can the military be removed from public security tasks.

Two, to promote education for peace. And this starts from childhood. We must teach in schools and in communities that conflicts can be resolved without violence, that there are methods of mediation, dialogue, restorative justice, and peacebuilding. The culture of peace is not decreed, it is built.

Three, transparency in budgets. We must demand that military budgets be public, that every purchase of weapons, every expenditure on defence be debated in parliaments. Opacity favors corruption and abuses. And in Latin America that has been historic.

Four, regional alliances for peace. Latin America has a tradition of declaring the region a zone of peace. This must be taken up with force. States can cooperate in common defence without the need to increase expenditure or get involved in military alliances such as NATO. CELAC, UNASUR or MERCOSUR can and should resume the demilitarization agenda.

And finally, civil society must be empowered. Social movements, universities, trade unions, indigenous peoples, organized women, youth... Everyone should have a voice in designing security policies. It cannot continue to be an exclusive field of generals and technocrats.

I want to close with a phrase from an old Spanish pacifist, Arcadi Oliveres, who said: "Weapons do not bring peace. Peace is built with justice, equality and dignity for all."

Thanks a lot.

Diana: Thank you very much, Per, for your complete analysis and for also offering us a point of view from Europe on what is happening in our region. I think it is essential to rescue what you mention that although Latin America has reduced military spending, that does not necessarily mean that there is less militarization or less violence. And what you mention about the role of civil society and accountability is also key.

We now turn to Pablo Ruiz Espinosa, coordinator of the Chile Office for the International Christian Service of Solidarity with the Peoples of Latin America – the Peace and Justice Service – also known as SERPAJ. Go ahead, Pablo.

Pablo Ruiz Espinosa: Well, thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank Diana and the team that has organized this important space. I am part of SERPAJ, a non-governmental organization with consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. We also participate in the Latin American Network for Human Security. And as some comrades have mentioned before, we have been working on the issue of militarization from a critical and popular perspective.

I wanted to share with you some reflections on how military spending affects not only budgets and the economy, but also the ways of living, organizing, and imagining the world.

Today in Latin America we are experiencing a militarist offensive that is often disguised as citizen security or the fight against organized crime. But what is at stake at heart is a model that puts force above dialogue, that puts weapons above rights, and that turns our communities into war zones.

In Chile, as Félix mentioned, we have had a military presence in Mapuche territory for years. This has meant not only direct violence, but also a very clear message: that the State prefers to treat with bullets what should be treated with dialogue and historical reparation.

And this is not only in Chile. In Colombia, in Mexico, in Peru... We see how militarization is used to control social protest, to protect extractivist interests, to shield borders, and also to criminalize indigenous peoples, youth, women, those who struggle.

And all this is supported by public budgets. Tanks are bought, helicopters are bought, rifles are bought. The police are trained with the logic of war. Millions are spent while our schools are falling down, while there are no hospitals in rural areas, while the elderly cannot live with dignity.

We believe that the equation must be reversed. That true security is not built with fear, but with rights. That peace is not only the absence of armed conflict, but the presence of social justice.

That is why at SERPAJ we talk about human security, understood as access to a life free of structural violence: that is, free from hunger, racism, patriarchy, discrimination, extractivism. And that is not achieved with more weapons. It is achieved with more community, more health, more education, more participation.

I would like to conclude with a specific proposal: that the United Nations and the Member States listen to the communities living in the most militarised territories. That they do not make security decisions without consulting those who suffer the consequences. And that they commit to progressively reduce military budgets and allocate those resources to public policies with a rights-based approach.

As Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and founder of SERPAJ, said: "Peace is not something that is imposed. Peace is built with the people."

Thanks a lot.

Diana: Thank you very much for your intervention, for putting us in context again with our situation in Latin America

Now we move on to Juliana Villano, professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina and researcher at the Institute of Migration and Human Rights of Brazil. Juliana has worked extensively on issues of public security, militarization and regional cooperation in South America. Go ahead, Juliana.

Juliana Villano: Thank you very much, Diana. And thank you very much also for the invitation to this space, which is so important. I thank each of the previous interventions; they have really been very valuable.

I have been working for some time on the issue of the militarization of public security policies in Latin America, especially from a critical perspective. I am going to try to share some ideas that are organized around three dimensions that I consider fundamental to rethinking security budgets in the region: the regional structure, the public security model, and the social and political control of the armed and security forces.

First, in terms  of regional structure, it must be remembered that Latin America has deep social inequalities, strong external dependence, and a history of military intervention in politics. This has greatly conditioned the ways in which security and defense institutions are organized. In many countries, a national security doctrine inherited from the Cold War is still maintained, which prioritizes internal control over the protection of citizens.

Secondly, with respect to the public security model, we see that there is a worrying trend towards what we call "armed citizen security". That is, policies that, under the discourse of protecting the population, actually militarize poor territories, racialize violence, and promote a logic of war against the internal enemy – which is often the poor, black, indigenous, migrant youth.

In Brazil, for example, the security model is strongly based on repression and punishment. The military police—which are not armed forces, but function as such—act under the command of state governors and have broad power to exercise violence, often with impunity. The result is a very high police lethality, especially against young black people in the urban peripheries.

And this is repeated in other countries in the region. In Colombia, in Mexico, in Peru, we see how the security forces act more like occupying armies than as public servants.

Third point: social and political control. One of the main weaknesses of our democratic systems is the lack of effective mechanisms of control over the armed and security forces. There is very little budget transparency, little accountability, and many times human rights violations are not adequately investigated or punished.

This creates a culture of impunity and autonomous power that weakens democracy. And also, as mentioned above, it opens space for pacts between political, military and economic elites that reinforce exclusion and structural violence.

That is why, from a democratic and rights-based perspective, it is urgent to rethink security budgets. We need security policies that are based on respect for life, human dignity, and that are aimed at reducing structural violence, not controlling it with more weapons.

We need to invest in social policies, in restorative justice, in community prevention, in care. And also in the strengthening of mechanisms for citizen participation in the construction of these policies.

Finally, I think it is important that we return to the agenda of regional cooperation for peace. Latin America is a region without interstate wars, but with very high levels of internal violence. If we want a future with security, we have to bet on integration, social justice, and the demilitarization of our societies.

Thanks a lot.

Diana: Thank you very much, Juliana, for your participation and for sharing with us your experience, especially around public policies to avoid militarization. I think it's a topic that we haven't addressed so much until now.

Let's continue with Dr. William Marcy. Then we will listen to the intervention of Dr. Gustavo Flores-Macías, who is already prepared. Dr. Marcy, your microphone is closed... perfect. Go ahead.

Dr. William Marcy: Thank you. My paper deals with militarization in the context of the "war on drugs" and the serious problems associated with this strategy. I have written my work in English, but if you prefer, I can make the presentation in Spanish.

Diana: We have a person in charge of translation, so you can continue in English. For those who are listening, there will be simultaneous interpretation.

Dr. William Marcy: Thank you. The militarization strategy has never delivered sustainable results in Latin America in the context of the war on drugs. This war, initiated under the government of Richard Nixon, has caused profound distortions in Latin American societies. It has never solved the structural problems of supply and demand for banned substances. On the contrary, it has strengthened illicit economies, turning drugs into highly profitable commodities.

This has allowed drug trafficking to gain enormous power, estimated in an economy of at least 5 billion dollars, with the capacity to subvert social and political structures in the region.

The application of militarized strategies has systematically ignored human rights and increased corruption in both the armed forces and governments. This has had serious consequences in countries such as Colombia, Peru, Mexico and throughout Central America.

For example, in 1989 the strategy known as the Andean Initiative began, which was later consolidated with Plan Colombia in 1998, militarizing the Colombian conflict. In Peru, the case of the Shining Path was mixed with the anti-drug narrative, directly affecting peasant and indigenous communities whose economy revolved around the coca leaf. Bolivia experienced a similar situation.

The United States began to equate insurgency and drug trafficking, considering armed groups as "narco-guerrillas," which justified militarization in several countries in the region.

After the dismantling of the large Colombian cartels, such as the Medellín cartel, in the 1990s, new, more fragmented and less controllable cartels emerged. It is in this context that the Mexican cartels, such as the Guadalajara cartel, the Juárez cartel with Amado Carrillo Fuentes, and the Gulf cartel with García Abrego, took center stage, extending their influence and corruption.

The Merida Initiative, implemented in 2007 under the government of Felipe Calderón in Mexico, was another example of how militarization exacerbates violence. The number of homicides skyrocketed from 2,000 to 15,000 in a few years, reflecting the dire consequences of this strategy.

Central America, already devastated by decades of civil wars and a colonial export-oriented economic structure, was left vulnerable. The lack of sustainable alternative development allowed the expansion of Mexican cartels in countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

In addition, policies such as mass deportations from the United States during the Bill Clinton administration contributed to the strengthening of gangs such as MS-13 and Barrio 18. These organizations flourished in a context of structural precariousness, lack of infrastructure, and neoliberal policies that eroded local markets.

In the case of Chiapas, after the Zapatista uprising in 1994, the Mexican government responded with military repression. This historically marginalized region became a key corridor for drug trafficking due to the institutional vacuum and militarization, even though the Zapatistas were against drug trafficking.

Tariff reductions by treaties such as NAFTA displaced millions of indigenous and rural people, forcing them to migrate to cities without the possibility of formal employment. There they found in gangs and organized crime an alternative to survive, especially in the Northern Triangle.

In the Andes, peasant coca farmers were caught between armed insurgencies, drug trafficking and military operations. The problem with militarization is that many innocent people were caught in the crossfire, especially when counter-narcotics policies were confused with counterinsurgency strategies.

In Mexico, human rights abuses are documented from the Tlatelolco massacre to the so-called "dirty war," where the state brutally repressed any political dissent. This was aggravated when peasant resistance and drug crops were associated with political subversion.

This created an environment where dissent was criminalized and militarization was used as a tool of repression. The disappearance of the 43 students from Ayotzinapa in 2014, during the implementation of the Merida Initiative, exemplifies the tragic consequences of these policies: innocent students were victims of a perverse alliance between authorities and organized crime.

In conclusion, the militarization of the war on drugs has backfired. It has escalated violence, weakened democratic institutions, undermined human rights, and created more problems than it has solved.

Gustavo Flores Macías: Well, I think it's my turn. Hello everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation and a pleasure to share the panel with you.

I apologize in advance because I have an engagement that started a few minutes ago, so I'll have to be extremely brief. But I would like to share my screen to show a presentation that helps to structure the exhibition a bit.

Well, I hope you can see my screen there.

The presentation, of course, has to do with these issues. I am mainly studying issues of militarization in Latin America and their consequences for democracy and human rights in the region.

The main question guiding my research—and presenting here—is: how have public security crises affected democracy in Latin America?

In organizing the talk, I will briefly first discuss the appeal of heavy-handed policies against crime, which are of course linked to militarization itself. Second, I will talk about how these security crises have been used to expand the powers of the executive branch at the expense of other branches of government, and human rights. And finally I will close with the consequences for democracy.

My main argument is that the security crises we are experiencing today in Latin America have opened the door to what can be called "punitive populism": the search for seemingly easy and short-term solutions, such as heavy-handed policies, to address the problem of public security. And this has very important institutional consequences.

Specifically, what we find is an expansion of the power of the Executive, weakening both other branches of government—such as the Legislative and Judiciary—as well as subnational governments and human rights institutions.

The two main mechanisms I identify are:

One: the use of states of emergency, which allow more power to be concentrated in the Executive, limit civil rights and apply repressive policies with greater impunity.

Two: the replacement of the civilian police by the army to carry out public security tasks.

The starting point is a historic presidentialism in Latin America – even a hyper-presidentialism in some countries – combined with very high levels of violence and crime, and police forces that are often corrupt, inefficient or weakened.

This makes citizens willing to accept – or even demand – quick responses, even if they put democracy at risk.

I will not be able to dwell on each case, but it is important to mention that this logic is not exclusive to El Salvador. It also happens in countries such as Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, and even in Chile, where the levels of violence do not justify these measures, but the army is still used.

Militarization, then, has a direct impact on the quality of democracy, by limiting rights, weakening checks and balances, and fostering impunity. Often, even when civilian courts are in place, excessive deference is shown to the military, perpetuating impunity.

And of course, local accountability is affected and the control that communities should exercise over their own security is displaced.

I am sorry to have to close here for reasons of time. Thank you very much for your attention and again thank you for the invitation.

Diana: Thank you very much, Gustavo. You have summarised very clearly how militarisation weakens institutions and creates conditions for authoritarianism. What you say about punitive populism resonates a lot in our contexts. Thanks to you for giving yourself the time, anyway stay a short moment. Thanks a lot.

Well, let's move on to the closing remarks by Carmen Capriles, founder of Climate Reaction of Bolivia, climate activist, feminist and expert in environmental policy. Her work links extractivism, militarization, and climate justice, with an emphasis on indigenous and feminist solutions.

Carmen Capriles: Yes, thank you very much. Precisely one of the issues we are concentrating on now is...

Well, my organization is called Climate Reaction and we work on climate change issues. What has happened? That we have fought – if the term is worth it – to have a fair, democratic energy transition that helps make energy more accessible and we don't have to depend so much on fossil fuels, because you know the number of problems that these bring, especially related to climate change.

To a certain extent, there has been a kind of transition. Now we are talking about electric cars, we are talking about wind turbines... We have not reached where we would like, but unfortunately in that process we have determined two problems that are very important and that no one is talking about, and that are even more important for the Latin American region.

One of these problems – and you have already alluded to it – is that rare earths and critical minerals are needed for the energy transition. For me, "critical minerals" has always been something very... why critical? I have grown up with the issue of lithium, with all the issues that Bolivia has been bringing in relation to mining. So, this is one more stain on the tiger.

And the issue is that this energy transition has generated, once again, a boom in the mining of many of these minerals, a demand abroad. Unfortunately, the second problem is that it is not only the demand for a beautiful, just transition – making turbines, electric cars, etc. – but, since Russia decided to invade Ukraine and there began to be higher-level military conflicts, there is a demand for these materials for the manufacture of weapons and weapons.

And one of the main ones – well, not the main one, but one of the suppliers – is Latin America.

One of the roles we never talk about is the role of Latin America in war contexts. For example, in World War II, Latin America provided copper, tin, manganese for the manufacture of weapons. And we were completely "neutral" about who we were selling to: it could be one side or the other.

Currently, due to social networks, alliances are clearer. However, we continue to have this disadvantage: our natural resources promote extractivism, promote sacrifice zones, impact local communities. And while we are not suffering from militarization as we do in other regions of the world, we are within a global structure that is rapidly escalating into a broader conflict.

And besides, although we do not have wars between countries, Latin America lives in constant conflict. We change presidents, we fight for education, for health, and many times we face military repression when the State does not fulfill its social contract. This military presence also generates an unequal power relationship between the population and the State.

Finally, and I would like to conclude with this, although minerals are being extracted to meet an international military demand, the royalties that this activity leaves in our countries are very low. In most cases they do not leave even 5%. And we have to ask ourselves: who is benefiting? Who are the intermediaries between the mine and the global market?

That is where governments are also complicit, allowing our resources to leave the country and only leave us crumbs.

I think the picture is very complex. There have been many lights that we hear today. I hope I have summarized a little of the talk and have managed to link it to climate change.

But it is necessary that in Latin America we continue to talk about and promote peace and demilitarization processes, because military spending is often unnecessary.

Thanks a lot.

Diana: Thank you very much, Carmen, for these closing words. And well, thank you all for your active participation. We hope that this consultation will fuel a broader dialogue on the need to rethink military spending globally.

We also invite you to stay in touch. We have a checklist.

Jorge: Hello, I hope you can hear me. It was a pleasure to learn from everyone. I thank you, Carmen, for the closing. I think you recovered very well the elements, concepts that different panelists shared, and thank you for bringing it to your country as well, Bolivia.

I think that knowing concrete examples, cases where we can keep an eye on, is very useful to later compare with other countries and with the region in general.

An apology if we did not follow the order of the questions, although I always privilege a rich discussion, a debate based on current events and not on a pre-established script, but on the natural flow of the conversation.

I will post the webinar on our website. You can check the link when I send them to you, and happy to continue the conversation in future panels.